Poster presentation at the 2nd International Symposium: ICF Education. 30 June 2017 (Cape Town). THEME: ICF Environmental Factors: Catalyst for person-centred healthcare http://www.icfeducation.org

1. Introduction
Despite demonstrated usefulness of
the ICF in several other professional
disciplines in the United States (such
as Occupational Therapy, Physical
Therapy, and Speech-Language
Pathology), social work professional
associations have not integrated ICF
into their scope of practice. This is a
major contributing factor to why the
majority of social workers remain
unaware of the ICF system.
However, it is imperative that social
workers become familiar with the ICF
framework and classification (1) since
federal social assistance programs like
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
have started to consider the utility of
the ICF and (2) other U.S. based
clinical professional associations have
already incorporated the ICF into their
respective education training programs
and clinical practice.
A main barrier to ICF implementation
is likely an alternative system known
as the PIE, Person-in-Environment,
System created in the early 1990s.*
This system has been prompted by the
National Association of Social Workers.
Comparing the ICF and PIE
(Person-in-Environment) Classifications
An overview of the Person-in-Environment (PIE) system commonly used in the field of social work is provided
and compared to the ICF framework and classification system. Current ICF implementation in social work programs is
described including initial findings from a literature review exploring the status of ICF in social work in the United States.
Recommendations for increasing ICF familiarity and usage among social workers is discussed.
30 June 2017
Cape Town
South Africa
2ND INTERNATIONAL ICF EDUCATION SYMPOSIUM
Patricia Welch Saleeby, PhD, MSSA
Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, School of Social Work, USA
Overview of the PIE System
PIE system uses a four factor structure
I: Social Role and Relationship
Functioning (type, severity, duration,
coping ability and strengths)
II: Environmental Problems
(severity, duration, resources or
strengths)
III: Mental Health Problems and
Strengths (describes client’s mental
health problems using DSM-IV-TR)
IV: Physical Health Problems and
Strengths (describes physical health
problems using ICD-10-CM)
Severity Index 1-5 scale, 5=most
severe
Duration Index 1-5 scale, 5=shortest
duration
Coping Index 1-6 scale, 5=poorest
coping and 6=being unable to judge at
this time
Strength Index 1=notable strengths
and 2=possible strengths
Both ICF and PIE frameworks highlight
the importance of understanding an
individual within his/her environment.
Both are biopsychosocial systems; but,
the ICF classification itself is more
comprehensive in nature than PIE. The
PIE is used for adult clients whereas
ICF is intended across the life span.
While the PIE system emphasizes
social work’s expertise in terms of
social functioning, social workers
address a broader range of functioning
areas and thus, the PIE system
minimizes social workers’ roles.
The PIE system includes a mechanism
to help social workers write and record
comprehensive assessments and
treatment plans. This is one significant
advantage over the ICF since social
work assessments based on ICF are
lacking.
References
Details of the PIE System
In congruence with the social work
philosophy of person-in-environment
the PIE system allows social workers to
classify and code problems in social
functioning.
PIE was developed for social workers
to use independently or to complement
information from alternative diagnostic
systems including the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD) and
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM).
PIE is considered a “holistic” system
that “gives primacy to the ability of the
clients to function in their social roles.”
Mental health problems, physical
health problems and community-based
problems are assessed in terms of how
they affect client social functioning.
Therefore, adequate social functioning
is the primary goal of social work
interventions derived from the PIE
assessment.
Relevance and Conclusions
Karls, J. M. & O’Keefe, M. (Eds.). (2008).
Person-in-Environment (PIE) system: The
PIE classification system for social
functioning problems (2nd Edition).
Washington , DC: NASW Press.
Karls, J. M. & Wandrei, K. E. (Eds.). (1994).
Person-in-Environment (PIE) system: The
PIE classification system for social
functioning problems. Washington , DC:
NASW Press.
Since social workers practice in various
settings with other clinicians and on
inter-disciplinary teams, the use of a
common language and system would
be beneficial for data sharing and
collaboration. The ICF provides a
universal mechanism to collect and
communicate health information across
professional disciplines. The PIE is
useful to social workers primarily.
Overall, the ICF provides a useful
framework, terminology, and
classification to facilitate enhanced
training of social workers about the full
range of functioning and the interactive
elements between functioning areas
(health, mental health, psychological,
social, etc.).
ICF embraces the well-known practice-
guiding principle of the social work
profession known as “person in
environment” in its classification and in
fact, expands upon this commonly
used social work approach.
It is interesting to note that in the PIE
2nd Edition, reference is made to using
the ICF, which complements the ICF.
The ICF must be promoted through
social work professional associations
such as the National Association of
Social Workers and the Council on
Social Work Education as well as
international social work groups
including International Federation of
Social Workers and International
Association of Schools of Social Work.
Both publication and presentations on
ICF in social work must be encouraged.
Abstract
Comparison of ICF and PIE
Recommendations